|
|
Post by lacerta on Jan 22, 2013 16:09:50 GMT
I recently purchase a 1929 Style 2 squareneck which is all in all, in pretty good shape. However, the cones are a bit squashed... Two are in pretty good shape and one has a dent, but hopefully not too serious. However they are all slightly squashed at the top where they contact the T-bar. Hopefully they are saveable as I would very much like to keep the original cones. If anyone has any experience in cone rescue please could they advise what the best option is: a) Re-install them as they are b) Try to push the tops back out c) Buy new cones And if you suggest, b)... Any tips? Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jan 22, 2013 17:10:38 GMT
Hi lacerta,
Welcome to our forum.
My first reaction is to leave them alone and put them back as they look fine for a 1929 set of Tricones. Yes, I can see the dents, but that is not what I would call 'a bit squashed'. Cones can be massaged out, but yours don't look bad enough to do that to. Is that the back bass-side cone in the photo?
It takes a long time for cones to bed in and become at one with the guitar. Why did you take them out? Did you mark the cones and the soundwell so that they go back in exactly the same position as they were?
I hope that is helpful
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by lacerta on Jan 22, 2013 17:54:33 GMT
Hello Michael
Thanks for your useful reply. All the cones are pretty much like that, although the back bass side was the worst. I know opening an old National isn't advisable but it had a badly repaired understrung tailpiece which needs replacing so I had to take the tension off the resonators anyway. Inside, all the cones were sitting on cardboard rings which I'm sure doesn't help sound-wise...
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jan 22, 2013 18:23:41 GMT
Hi Lacerta,
I a pleased that my advice has been helpful.
The back bass cone is the one that gets the most wear & tear, so if that photo is of the worst one, you are fine to keep those cones.
The understrung tailpiece will have been putting uneven pressure on the cones, so you are right repair or replace it.
Replacing vintage cones is always my very last option.
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on Jan 22, 2013 22:31:09 GMT
Hi there ! The cones in my Style 3 squareneck, when I got it :   Ooomph! I massaged the squashed middle section back into shape more or less BUT importantly, the guitar now sounds great. Full and fat tone. I think the tricone cones may be a bit more resilient to such problems and such reshaping, compared to single cones. More pictures (last ones show the newly cleaned guitar and cones and reshaped squashed one) : s51.beta.photobucket.com/user/snakehips82/library/Style%203%20TriconeMine has a steel tailpiece and a steel well. Is that normal to have a steel well ? |
|
|
|
Post by gaucho on Jan 23, 2013 0:39:57 GMT
Snake, what year is that one? Did the early cones have rolled edges or were they jagged, hand cut like the single cones?
|
|
|
|
Post by alias on Jan 23, 2013 1:22:20 GMT
I find it interesting that a Tricone would have a steel tailpiece.
I imagine it’s not unique but it’s the first one I know of.
Is the plating problem with the early steel Style O guitars apparent on the plated steel tailpieces as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on Jan 23, 2013 7:23:05 GMT
Hi again !
I think mine is circa 1937.
Haven't seen enough tricones to know enough about their cones.
Steel tailpieces not unusual I don't think - but are just as prone to pitting as early steel bodied Style "O" 's - as on one I have.
For me though, and one aspect of vintage Nationals I have never seen described in detail, is the metal used for the wells.
I always assumed that the well would be made from the same metal as the rest of the guitar ?
|
|
|
|
Post by lacerta on Jan 23, 2013 9:45:37 GMT
Thanks Snakehips, your tricone is beauty and the state of your cones gives me confidence!
The original tailpiece was brass, you can see the metal along the line where it broke. The well is steel. I have a new tailpiece on order so hopefully she will be up and singing again soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshcat on Jan 23, 2013 10:28:05 GMT
Snakehips,
Here are details of some wells I've come across. At some point they seem to have switched from wood to German silver and then to steel. I've heard it said that the earlier GS-well instruments are better sound-wise than steel-well instruments, partly for this reason. I haven't played enough wooden wells!
Instrument Year Well
01. Round-neck Style 3 tricone 1928 GS
02. Round-neck Style 2 tricone 1928 GS
03. Square-neck Style 3 tricone 1928 GS
04. Round-neck Style 1 tricone 1928 GS
05. Round-neck Style 1 tricone 1929 St
06. Square-neck Style 4 tricone 1929 St
07. Square-neck Style 3 tricone 1930 St
08. Square-neck Style 4 tricone 1930 St
09. Square-neck Style 2 tricone 1930 St
10. Square-neck Style 1 tricone 1931 St
11. Square-neck Style 1 1/2 tricone 1933 St
12. Round-neck XPT tricone 1937 St
Be nice if others could check their instruments (use a magnet!) to confirm the time frame, I can check a few more so will amend the list later!
Stuart
|
|
|
|
Post by Tymus on Jan 23, 2013 12:44:49 GMT
1927/8 Style1 triplate number 499, square-neck, German Silver throughout, body, well and coverplate. Button tailpiece is non-magnetic.
Tymus.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on Jan 23, 2013 20:26:46 GMT
Marshcat !
What does XPT mean?
(On your 1937 Tricone)
Replacement neck ?
I think that NRP use steel for all their resonator guitar wells, whether wood, steel, brass or German Silver (except the El Trovador and M1 Tricone).
My NRP GS Style 1.5 Trione has a steel well.
I wonder if the Dopyras told Don Young to make the wells out of steel ?
The well needs to be flat and perhaps steel is easier to make flat or stay flate when soldering all the parts together during the body construction phase ?
Or is it purely about tone/sustain/volume ?
|
|
|
|
Post by marshcat on Jan 24, 2013 8:50:56 GMT
Snakehips: XPT = Exploding Palm Tree.
I would hazard a guess that the changes in the well material were probably dictated mostly by cost considerations.
Like most things National, earlier usually means 'better but more expensive to manufacture'. I have played a very few wooden-well square-neck tricones and they do sound sublime.
Stuart
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jan 24, 2013 9:41:02 GMT
I have not commented on the subject of soundwell materials up until now because I am not convinced that it is as clear-cut as is generally believed. I also don't always, especially in this case, believe that earlier is better, apart from early Triplates with wood soundwells which I do think are the sweetest and best sounding of all.
I asked Mike Lewis (Fine Resophonic Guitars) about this subject and rather than paraphrase his words, I have pasted his email about soundwells.
It is interesting that Stuart's Triplates fall into a chronological pattern, because that is not what Mike has found with his research on this particular area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Michael,
Somewhere around late 1928/29 they changed from German Silver and some brass soundwells, to steel. This is not a proven fact, just me over the past 20 years taking out magnets and scratching soundwells. I have done this with every Triplate that has come into the workshop. And when I think about it, the Triplates that I have played with German Silver wells can sometimes sound a bit thin, where steel does not.
Was the steel a wonderful discovery, or was it just cheaper to make! I think it was just cheaper and by chance better (to my ears). Still, no rules, I'm sure someone might find a 1935 Triplate with a German Silver soundwell. My 1928 & 1931 Triplates both have steel soundwells.
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Mike, much appreciated.
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Jan 24, 2013 19:10:40 GMT
Perhaps it was done to reduce the corrosion which occurs when certain metals are in contact.
Nick
|
|
